Holocaust Revisionism And The Campaign Against Russia

“The main reason for that was not because of warfare or systematic killing, it’s because …diseases, …did not have any immunities, so they perished in large numbers.”

The above statement, if said in reference to the slaughter of Jews in concentration camps by Nazis, would be illegal in most European countries. Individuals like David Irving, who have claimed that “disease” not homicidal gas chambers, killed the victims of Auschwitz and other concentration camps, have been fined and imprisoned. Claiming pure intentions on the part of the Nazis, revising the statistics on their atrocities, and purporting that those who say otherwise have a “hidden agenda” is simply deemed to be unacceptable in reference to the Nazi holocaust.

However, the above passage, said on national prime time television in the United States, was not said in reference the crimes of the German Nazis. It was said by Dinesh D’Souza, popular US conservative commentator, in reference to crimes against Native Americans by the white settlers of North America.

The slaughter of the indigenous peoples of North America, like the slaughter of Jews by the Nazis, is very well documented and un-disputable. In places like Gnaddenhutten, Wounded Knee, and Camp Grant, mass slaughters of indigenous men, women, and children were carried out. A string of historical incidents, each more shocking in its details than the last, can be pointed toward as crimes against humanity. The callous inhumanity inflicted on the indigenous peoples of North America shocks the minds of any moral individual. For example, in one instance the slaughter of indigenous pre-pubescent children was justified by US military official John Chivington with the phrase “Knits make lice.” Since the initial genocide, the indigenous peoples were forcibly relocated to reservations and largely remain there, living in horrendous poverty.

Under the slogan “Kill the Indian, Save the Man”, a cultural genocide was carried out. Until the 1960s, Native American religions were outlawed, and indigenous children were forcibly abducted from their parents and sent to schools runs by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. At these schools their languages were forbidden and they were indoctrinated with Christianity.

The fact the crimes against the native people amounted to genocide is not disputed among historians. All across the planet, it is largely treated as fact.

Dinesh D’souza, who denied the genocide of Native peoples on national television, practices basically the same activity as Holocaust revisionist historian David Irving. He has denied the slaughter of innocent people because it does not fit with his pre-conceived view of the world. D’souza panders to an audience of elderly conservatives, who want to believe the US is the “greatest country in the world” and cannot accept the reality of its atrocities, even those committed centuries ago. Much like Irving’s much smaller audience of fanatical anti-communists and Hitler worshippers, many FOX news viewers will happily buy each of D’souza’s books, and watch his film “America.” D’souza and Irving reassure their audience of the false historical delusions that they desperately want to keep believing.

In order to believe in the absolute morality of the Nazi state, it is necessary to tamper with the historical narrative of the holocaust. In order to believe in the absolute morality of the United States, it is necessary to tamper with the historical narrative of the slaughter of native people.

D’souza is not alone. Holocaust revisionism, in which the established narrative of atrocities is tampered with for political purposes, is a big trend in modern US politics and media. The campaign is increasingly prevalent in media and the rhetoric politicians in the context of efforts to justify US foreign policy, and whip up hostility against Russia.

“Liberal Fascism” Fairytales

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative writer associated with National Review Magazine, has practically made a career by re-writing the historical narrative of the Nazi holocaust. Golderg’s Holocaust Revisionism consists of revising the historical reality of who the Nazis were, in order that certain political entities not be tainted with their memory.

Goldberg attempts to purify western capitalism and its hardline defenders in the right-wing, by presenting the Nazis as “leftists” and “socialists.” Goldberg’s hope is to absolve the racist, hardline, empire building “right-wing” of any responsibility for the events that killed 14 million innocent people. Goldberg presents the holocaust, not as a crime associated by extreme defenders of imperialism and tradition, but as somehow a crime of the political left and progressive movements.

Goldberg’s arguments, presented in his book “Liberal Fascism” and his many TV appearances, are frivolous and silly. He focuses on Hitler’s vegetarianism, or alleged involvement in mystical religion. He takes quotations out of context.

He has claimed that alleged statements from the German Communist Party such as “First Brown, Then Red” or “After Hitler, Our Day” amount to an endorsement of Nazi politics. This is an absurd interpretation.

Firstly, it is disputed whether or not the German Communist Party (KPD) actually officially made these statements. Leon Trotsky holds them up in his condemnations of the German Communist Party and the policies of the Communist International after 1928, but defenders of the KPD question them.

Regardless, what these statements represented actual KPD policy, what they were said to mean was the opposite of an endorsement of Nazism. The KPD at the time was extremely hostile to the German Social-Democratic Party, who they called “Social Fascists.” They allegedly argued that it would be better for Hitler to take power, than the moderate socialists. The argument was that Hitler would make things worse, and drive more Germans to embrace the revolutionary politics of the Communist Party. They argued that Social Democracy was more dangerous with its deceptive consolation. “After Hitler, Our Day” was based on concept commonly called “accelerationism.” It expressed the idea that Nazi fascism was so extreme and brutal, that it would spark a class battle.

Critiques and analysis of the Communist International’s politics during the “Third Period” of 1928 to 1935 are widespread among leftist activists, historians, and analysts. However, none allege that the Communist Party and the Nazi Party had any feelings of admiration for each other. The stated goal of Nazism was to “rid the world of Bolshevism.” On the streets of German cities, Nazi brownshirts battled against the KPD’s Red Front Fighters League on an almost daily basis.

Goldberg’s claim of Pro-Nazi sentiments among German Communists is completely false. It is true that the Nazis copied a great deal of the propaganda and rhetorical methods developed by the Communists and Social-Democrats. It is also true that they sometimes raised similar grievances against the existing social order. However, the message was completely different.

The German Communist Party blamed the woes of post-war Germany on the wealthy German industrial capitalists, and the bankers in Britain and the United States. The Nazis and other sections of the extreme right-wing blamed the woes of Germany, not on capitalism or the rich, but on the prevalence of Marxism, an alleged lack of patriotism and national unity, and some kind of secret conspiracy by Jews.

These analyses of German society and woes are incompatible with one another. One analysis calls for restoring the past, by purging society of ethnic groups and reforms. The other calls for the destruction of the existing society, and the creation of an entirely new one based on egalitarianism and the abolition of private property.

“A Party of the Right”

Hitler has no illusions of being a leftist. In his address in Munich on April 12th, 1921 he proclaimed: “There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise – there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.” (Emphasis C.M.)

Only in the delusional mind of Jonah Goldberg can such words be perceived as “leftist” or “liberal.” The Nazis were very clear that they were a “Party of the Right.”

Goldberg’s work ignores Hitler’s popularity and support from the right-wing throughout the western world. He ignores that Henry Ford, the right-wing industrial capitalist who smashed unions, was given an Iron Cross by Hitler for his services to Nazism.

A list of Hitler’s international allies and supporters reads like an encyclopedia of 1930s conservatives and right-wingers. It includes King Edward the VIII of Britain, “Radio Priest” Father Charles Coughlin, patriotic air pilot Charles Lindbergh, anti-Communist columnist Elizabeth Dilling, and L’oreal cosmetics tycoon Eugene Schueller.

Around the world, the words of Nazi sympathizers were always laced with crazed Anti-Communism, defense of traditional morality and western chauvinist nationalism. The largest grouping of Nazi sympathizers in the United States was actually called the “America First Committee.”

The chair of the “America First Committee” was Robert E. Wood, the CEO of Sears, Roebuck, and Company. Famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright attempted to join the “America First Committee” but was denied due to his “reputation for immorality.” Future Republican President Gerald Ford was also a member of the America First Committee while he attended Yale Law School.

Charles Lindbergh, the most outspoken “America First” sympathizer wrote for the conservative magazine Reader’s Digest. In one article he proclaimed: “We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.” How are these words in any way consistent with the anti-racism and “political correctness” that Jonah Goldberg bemoans on in his thunderous tirades against the left?

Goldberg’s writing attempts to portray Nazism and its allies in the world fascist movement of the 1930s as liberals, based on nitpicking details and a list of statements that he perceives to be somehow “un-conservative.” In doing so, Goldberg practices a classic logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman.” The logic of Goldberg can be reduced to “Hitler did bad things, he must not have been a right-winger, because right-wingers don’t do bad things.”

It is hard to argue against someone who holds such extreme assumptions. But why is such a concept now part of mainstream discourse?

Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” was widely promoted, not just among the extreme right-wing, but on even mainstream television. Liberal comedian Jon Stewart interviewed Goldberg on his widely viewed television program.

Like David Irving, Jonah Goldberg is essentially re-writing the events of the holocaust to serve a political end. However, Goldberg’s work, making outrageous historical claims, has been given legitimacy by the US media. While liberals may loudly argue against it, they consider it to be part of respectable discourse.

The idea that somehow Nazism and Fascism are just another wing of Socialism and Communism is not considered laughable, or absurd. Its considered worth discussing and debating.

Re-writing the Narrative of Auschwitz

The revisionism goes beyond Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D’souza’s attempts to retell how atrocities were carried out. The manner in which the Nazi holocaust was ended and its perpetrators defeated, is also another field of revisionism. The fact that the Soviet Union was decisive in defeating Hitler, is being marginalized and forgotten.

While ranting against film-maker Michael Moore for an alleged lack of patriotism, FOX news host Bill O’reilly proclaimed, on June 28th, 2004: “…This is the United States, who has freed the world from communism, freed the world from fascism, from the axis powers, freed the Pacific from Japanese…” Bill O’reilly recently published a book called “Killing Patton” that alleges that the Soviet Union assassinated this US military official.

North Dakotan Senator Heidi Heitkamp bemoaned the lengthy congressional negotiations saying that a “decision has taken longer than it took us to defeat Hitler.” However, all of these statements belittling Soviet military achievements, pale in comparison to a recent event in Europe.

At the 2015 Holocaust commemorations at the site of Auschwitz concentration camp, one world leader was barred from attending. Vladimir Putin, who presides over the Russian Federation, was not allowed to be present at the commemorations at Auschwitz, even though it was troops from the Soviet Union that liberated the camp.

Western historians and politicians are doing all they can to subtly, and sometimes blatantly erase from public memory that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting against Adolph Hitler. Auschwitz and other concentration camps were liberated by Soviet Troops. 26 million Soviet citizens perished in the fight against Hitler.

The US did not singlehandedly defeat the Nazis, Italian fascists, and Japanese imperialists. Communists in the United States held rallies demanding the US intervention in Europe. Communist Party leader William Z. Foster observed “we are letting our European allies fight alone.”

In fact, the US did not land in Normandy until the Soviet Union had already turned the tide of the war. With the Soviet Union marching inland toward Berlin, the US entered the European theater, fearing that all of Europe would be liberated by Red Army tanks.

The heroism of the Soviet Union, which included the Russian Soviet Republic, in defeating the Nazis ending the holocaust cannot be ignored. Yet, it is being re-written, to serve political purposes in the 21st Century.

Who were the Anti-Fascists?

The USSR called for a “World Alliance Against Fascism” as early as 1934, only to be rejected by the western world. Anti-fascist resistance groups in Germany, France, and Italy were led by Communists.

Communists raised funds for the Spanish Republic as it fought fascists, and thousands of young Communists from around the world travelled to Spain forming International Brigades to join the fight for democracy. Prior to the Second World War, the Soviet Union was the only country to aid those who fought Nazi allies in Spain.

British Communists battled British Nazi Oswald Mosley at the famous battle of Cable Street in 1936. The US Communist Party boycotted Japanese and German products. US Communists attacked and disrupted the 1939 pro-Nazi rally of the German-American Bund rally in Madison Square Garden. The underground resistance groups that fought Benito Mussolini were called “Partisan Brigades” and they were almost exclusively led by Communist Party members. Communists from around the world, taking leadership from the Soviet Union, rallied around a policy called “Everything for Victory.”

Underground resistance fighters who faced firing squads in Germany and fascist occupied territories, often raised their fists into the air and shouted “Stalin!” before being shot down. The contribution of the Soviet Union and the global communist movement to the allied victory in the Second World War is immeasurable.

Yet, the Holocaust Revisionists who dominate US discourse, have attempted to re-tell the story of Hitler’s defeat. They belittle, deny, or attempt to discredit the Soviet Union’s heroic sacrifice to defeat Hitler.

Books like “The Devils Alliance” attempt to cast the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as an alliance between the USSR and the Nazis. Books like Dr. Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands” go as far as to claim that the Soviet Union killed more innocent people than the Nazis.

Beyond academia and the politically active sector of the population, there is now a very high level of historical confusion among the wider US population. A campaign of disinformation has led many people to be so confused that they literally believe that “Hitler was a Communist.”

Hillary Clinton’s outrageous comparison of Vladimir Putin to Adolph Hitler was understood by the world to be highly offensive, due to the millions of Russians and other Soviet Nationalities that perished in the Second World war.

Yet, to the US public, who have endured decades of misinformation, it seemed to make sense. To so many people in the United States history has been simplified so that Hitler is another one of the “bad guys” who was “against America.” If Putin is now portrayed as such on 24 hour cable news broadcasts, why not compare him to Hitler? The outrageousness and offensive nature of such comparisons has been buried under pages of holocaust revisionism and Russophobic anti-Communist scholarship.

Behind the Campaign of Historical Revisionism

Some may think that events of the 1930s and 40s bear little relevance to current events. They are wrong.

Bookstores throughout the United States have shelves filled with books pushing revisionist tracts from various scholars. Major US publishers push a unified narrative about the “Soviet Empire” that “slaughtered hundreds of millions.” The phrase “Stalin was worse than Hitler” is often repeated on television without challenge. This all serves a very real political purpose.

The author of one Anti-Communist historical tract, Timothy Snyder, has suddenly found himself in the public eye, far beyond the University lecture halls. Snyder uses his historical work to justify the US support for the Kiev Junta. Snyder’s mythology proclaiming “Stalin was worse than Hitler” seems to make Poroshenko’s shelling of civilian areas seem understandable.

Who are the allies of the United States in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and even within Russia itself? They are crazed anti-communists. They are admirers of Hitler. They are fanatical racists. They are advocates of neo-liberalism, the direct rule of western banks, and expansion of NATO. They are peoples hated by their respective populations, but loved as obedient servants of Wall Street.

And who are the forces of resistance? They are Communists and socialists, standing alongside nationalists who speak against capitalism. They all recall the Soviet era with pride in its achievements, and speak with open contempt for the western bankers who sit on top of the world, and once threatened the USSR with nuclear destruction.

In this global context, of rising hatred for Russia, and the rise of political repression and economic crisis in the west, the prevalent campaign of holocaust revisionism makes sense.

The actual story of the holocaust is the story of tyrants rising to power on a platform of crazed anti-Communism and promises to restore “law and order.” It is a story of private corporations making billions and billions of dollars from slave labor, while “restarting” the economy with rampant militarism. It is a story of military expansionism and aggression covered up with lies and false claims of victimhood. It is the story of a global financial crisis, when an increasingly impoverished population was misdirected to scapegoat certain ethnic groups, and not to challenge the system responsible for deteriorating conditions.

In addition to its horror, in the actual, un-censored and un-revised events of the Second World War, we also see another story. It is a story of resistance against injustice, amazing feats of courage in the face of deadly terror, and amazing acts of sacrifice. It is a story in which the peoples of the United States, Britain, Russia, and China are not deadly enemies, but friends, united against fascism. It is a story in which the most self-sacrificing, and fearless resisters to tyranny and genocide, are not defenders of free market capitalism, but self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists, who take direction, not from Washington, but from Moscow.

The actual historical record of what went on during the holocaust is repudiation of the motivations and of the very system currently championed by the rulers of the United States. No wonder they work so hard to rewrite it, as they move frighteningly toward a new world war.


About the author:

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Original source of the article:


Winston Churchill: Britain’s “Greatest Briton” Left A Legacy Of Global Conflict And Crimes Against Humanity

Sunday January 24th 2016 marks the anniversary of the death of one of the most lionized leaders in the Western world: Sir Winston Churchill.

The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Churchill “the greatest ever Prime Minister”, and Britons have recently voted him as the greatest Briton to have ever lived.

The story that British schoolbooks tell children about Churchill is of a British Bulldog, with unprecedented moral bravery and patriotism. He, who defeated the Nazis during World War II and spread civilisation to indigenous people from all corners of the globe. Historically, nothing could be further from the truth.

To the vast majority of the world, where the sun once never set on the British empire, Winston Churchill remains a great symbol of racist Western imperialist tyranny, who stood on the wrong side of history.

The myth of Churchill is Britain’s greatest propaganda tool because it rewrites Churchill’s true history in order to whitewash Britain’s past imperialist crimes against humanity. The Churchill myth also perpetuates Britain’s ongoing neo-colonial and neo-liberal policies, that still, to the is day, hurt the very people around the world that Churchill was alleged to have helped civilise.

The same man whose image is polished and placed on British mantelpieces as a symbol of all that is Great about Britain was an unapologetic racist and white supremacist. “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”, he once bellowed. As Churchill put it, Palestinians were simply “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.”

In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission:

“I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

It is unsurprising that when Barack Obama became President, he returned to Britain a bust of Churchill which he found on his desk in the Oval office. According to historian Johann Hari, Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for daring to resist Churchill’s empire.

Apart from being an unrepentant racist, Churchill was also a staunch proponent of the use of terrorism as a weapon of war.

During the Kurdish rebellion against the British dictatorship in 1920, Churchill remarked that he simply did not understand the “squeamishness” surrounding the use of gas by civilized Great Britain as a weapon of terror. “I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes, it would spread a lively terror,” he remarked.

In the same year, as Secretary of State for War, Churchill sent the infamous Black and Tans to Ireland to fight the IRA. The group became known for vicious terrorist attacks on civilians which Churchill condoned and encouraged.

While today Britons celebrate Churchill’s legacy, much of the world outside the West mourns the legacy of a man who insisted that it was the solemn duty of Great Britain to invade and loot foreign lands because in Churchill’s own words Britain’s “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Churchill’s legacy in the Far East, Middle East, South Asia and Africa is certainly not one of an affable British Lionheart, intent on spreading civilization amongst the natives of the world. To people of these regions the imperialism, racism, and fascism of a man like Winston Churchill can be blamed for much of the world’s ongoing conflicts and instability.

As Churchill himself boasted, he “created Jordan with a stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon,” thereby placing many Jordanians under the brutal thumb of a throneless Hashemite prince, Abdullah. Historian Michael R. Burch recalls how the huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze” because Churchill carelessly drew the expansive boundary after a generous lunch.

Churchill also invented Iraq. After giving Jordan to Prince Abdullah, Churchill, the great believer in democracy that he was, gave Prince Abdullah’s brother Faisal an arbitrary patch of desert that became Iraq. Faisal and Abdullah were war buddies of Churchill’s friend T. E. Lawrence, the famous “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Much like the clumsy actions in Iraq of today’s great Empire, Churchill’s imperial foreign policy caused decades of instability in Iraq by arbitrarily locking together three warring ethnic groups that have been bleeding heavily ever since. In Iraq, Churchill bundled together the three Ottoman vilayets of Basra that was predominantly Shiite, Baghdad that was Sunni, and Mosul that was mainly Kurd.

Ask almost anyone outside of Iraq who is responsible for the unstable mess that Iraq is in today and they are likely to say one word, either “Bush” or “America”. However, if you asked anyone within Iraq who is mainly responsible for Iraq’s problems over the last half century and they are likely to simply say “Churchill”.

Winston Churchill convened the 1912 Conference in Cairo to determine the boundaries of the British Middle Eastern mandate and T.E. Lawrence was the most influential delegate. Churchill did not invite a single Arab to the conference, which is shocking but hardly surprising since in his memoirs Churchill said that he never consulted the Arabs about his plans for them.

The arbitrary lines drawn in Middle Eastern sand by Churchillian imperialism were never going to withstand the test of time. To this day, Churchill’s actions have denied Jordanians, Iraqis, Kurds and Palestinians anything resembling true democracy and national stability.

The intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict can also be traced directly back to Churchill’s door at number 10 Downing Street and his decision to hand over the “Promised Land” to both Arabs and Jews. Churchill gave practical effect to the Balfour declaration of 1917, which expressed Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish homeland, resulting in the biggest single error of British foreign policy in the Middle East.

Churchill’s legacy in Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya in particular is also one of deep physical and physiological scars that endure to this day.

Of greater consequence to truth and history should be a man’s actions, not merely his words. Whilst Churchill has become one of the most extensively quoted men in the English speaking world, particularly on issues of democracy and freedom, true history speaks of a man whose actions revolved around, in Churchill’s own words, “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples”.

One such war was when Kikuyu Kenyans rebelled for their freedom only to have Churchill call them “brutish savage children” and force 150,000 of them into “Britain’s Gulag”.

Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins, highlights Churchill’s many crimes in Kenya in her book Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Professor Elkins explains how Churchill’s soldiers “whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects”, all in the name of British “civilization”. It is said that President Obama’s grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured from Churchill’s men.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved how in Bengal in 1943 Churchill engineered one of the worst famines in human history for profit.

Over three million civilians starved to death whilst Churchill refused to send food aid to India. Instead, Churchill trumpeted that “the famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” Churchill intentionally hoarded grain to sell for profit on the open market after the Second World War instead of diverting it to starving inhabitants of a nation controlled by Britain. Churchill’s actions in India unquestionably constituted a crime against humanity.

Churchill was also one of the greatest advocates of Britain’s disastrous divide-and-rule foreign policy.

Churchill’s administration deliberately created and exacerbated sectarian fissures within India’s independence movement, between Indian Hindus and Muslims that have had devastating effects on the region ever since.

Prior to India’s independence from Britain, Churchill was eager to see bloodshed erupt in India, so as to prove that Britain was the benevolent “glue holding the nation together”. For Churchill, bloodshed also had the added strategic advantage that it would also lead to the partition of India and Pakistan. Churchill’s hope was this partition would result in Pakistan remaining within Britain’s sphere of influence. This, in turn, would enable the Great Game against the Soviet empire to continue, no matter the cost to innocent Indian and Pakistanis. The partition of India with Pakistan caused the death of about 2.5 million people and displaced some 12.5 million others.

According to writer, Ishaan Tharoor, Churchill’s own Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery,  compared his boss’s understanding of India’s problems to King George III’s apathy for the Americas. In his private diaries Amery vented that “on the subject of India, Churchill is not quite sane” and that he didn’t “see much difference between Churchill’s outlook and Hitler’s.”

Churchill shared far more ideologically in common with Hitler than most British historians care to admit. For instance, Churchill was a keen supporter of eugenics, something he shared in common with Germany’s Nazi leadership, who were estimated estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number. Churchill drafted a highly controversial piece of legislation, which mandated that the mentally ill be forcibly sterilized. In a memo to the Prime Minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, “the multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race”. He also helped organise the International Eugenics Conference of 1912, which was the largest meeting of proponents of eugenics in history.

Churchill had a long standing belief in racial hierarchies and eugenics. In Churchill’s view, white protestant Christians were at the very top of the pyramid, above white Catholics, while Jews and Indians were only slightly higher than Africans.

Historian, Mr. Hari, rightfully points out, “the fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu ‘savages’ is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.”

Amid today’s Churchillian parades and celebratory speeches, British media and schoolbooks may choose to only remember Churchill’s opposition to dictatorship in Europe, but the rest of the world cannot choose to forget Churchill’s imposition of dictatorship on darker skinned people outside of Europe. Far from being the Lionheart of Britain, who stood on the ramparts of civilisation, Winston Churchill, all too often, simply stood on the wrong side of history.

Churchill is indeed the Greatest Briton to have ever lived, because for decades, the myth of Churchill has served as Britain’s greatest propaganda tool to bolster national white pride and glorify British imperial culture.

About the author:

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com

British Colonials Starved To Death 60 Million-Plus Indians, But, Why?


The chronic want of food and water, the lack of sanitation and medical help, the neglect of means of communication, the poverty of educational provision, the all-pervading spirit of depression that I have myself seen to prevail in our villages after over a hundred years of British rule make me despair of its beneficence. — Rabindranath Tagore

If the history of British rule in India were to be condensed to a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India’s per-capita income from 1757 to 1947.[1]

Churchill, explaining why he defended the stockpiling of food within Britain, while millions died of starvation in Bengal, told his private secretary that “the Hindus were a foul race, protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is their due.”[2]

June 27— During its 190 years of looting and pillaging, the Indian Subcontininent as a whole underwent at least two dozen major famines, which collectively killed millions of Indians throughout the length and breadth of the land. How many millions succumbed to the famines cannot be fully ascertained. However, colonial rulers’ official numbers indicate it could be 60 million deaths. In reality, it could be significantly higher.

British colonial analysts cited droughts as the cause of fallen agricultural production that led to these famines, but that is a lie. British rulers, fighting wars in Europe and elsewhere, and colonizing parts of Africa, were exporting grains from India to keep up their colonial conquests—while famines were raging. People in the famineaffected areas, resembling skeletons covered by skin only, were wandering around, huddling in corners and dying by the millions. The Satanic nature of these British rulers cannot be overstated.

A Systematic Depopulation Policy

Although no accurate census figure is available, in the year 1750 India’s population was close to 155 million. At the time British colonial rule ended in 1947, undivided India’s population reached close to 390 million. In other words, during these 190 years of colonial looting and organized famines, India’s population rose by 240 million. Since 1947, during the next 68-year period, Indian Subcontininent’s population, including those of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, has grown to close to 1.6 billion. Thus, despite poverty and economic depravity in the post-independent Indian Subcontininent, during those 68 years population has grown by almost 1.2 billion.

Records show that during the post-independence period, the Subcontininent has undergone drought conditions in parts of the land from time to time, but there was no famine, although thousands still die in the Subcontininent annually due to the lack of adequate amount of food, a poor food distribution system, and lack of sufficient nourishment. It is also to be noted that before the British colonials’ jackboots got firmly planted in India, famines had occurred but with much less frequency—maybe once in a century.

There was indeed no reason for these famines to occur They occurred only because The Empire engineered them, intending to strengthen the Empire by ruthless looting and adoption of an unstated policy to depopulate India. This, they believed would bring down the Empire’s cost of sustaining India.

Take, for instance, the case of Bengal, which is in the eastern part of the Subcontininent where the British East India Company (HEIC, Honorable East India Company, according to Elizabeth I’s charter) had first planted its jackboots in 1757. The rapacious looters, under the leadership of Robert Clive—a degenerate and opium addict, who blew his brains out in 1774 in the London Berkley Square residence he had procured with the benefits of his looting—got control of what is now West Bengal, Bangladesh, Bihar, and Odisha (earlier, Orissa), in 1765. At the time, historical records indicate India represented close to 25% of the world’s GDP, second only to China, while Britain had a paltry 2%. Bengal was the richest of the Indian provinces.

Following his securing control of Bengal by ousting the Nawab in a devious battle at Plassey (Palashi), Clive placed a puppet on the throne, paid him off, and negotiated an agreement with him for the HEIC to become the sole tax collector, while leaving the nominal responsibility for government to his puppet. That arrangement lasted for a century, as more and more Indian states were bankrupted to facilitate future famines. The tax money went into British coffers, while millions were starved to death in Bengal and Bihar.

Clive, who was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1768 and whose statue stands near the British Empire’s evil center, Whitehall, near the Cabinet War Room, had this to say in his defense when the British Parliament, playing “fair,” accused him of looting and other abuses in India:

Consider the situation which the Victory of Plassey had placed on me. A great Prince was dependent upon my pleasure; an opulent city lay at my mercy; its richest bankers bid against each other for my smiles; I walked through vaults which were thrown open to me alone, piled on either hand with gold and jewels! By God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation.

However, Clive was not the only murderous British colonial ruler. The British Empire had sent one butcher after another to India, all of whom engineered looting and its consequent depopulation.

By 1770, when the first great famine occurred in Bengal, the province had been looted to the core. What followed was sheer horror. Here is how John Fiske in his American Philosopher in the Unseen World depicted the Bengal famine:

All through the stifling summer of 1770 the people went on dying. The husbandmen sold their cattle; they sold their implements of agriculture; they devoured their seed-grain; they sold their sons and daughters, till at length no buyer of children could be found; they ate the leaves of trees and the grass of the field. . . . The streets were blocked up with promiscuous heaps of the dying and dead. Interment could not do its work quick enough; even the dogs and jackals, the public scavengers of the East, became unable to accomplish their revolting work, and the multitude of mangled and festering corpses at length threatened the existence of the citizens…. [3]

Was there any reason for the famine to occur? Not if the British had not wanted it. Bengal, then, as now, harvested three crops a year. It is located in the delta of the Gangetic plain where water is more than plentiful. Even if drought occurs, it does not destroy all three crops. Moreover, as was prevalent during the Moghul days, and in earlier time, the surplus grain was stored to tide the population over if there were one or two bad crops.

But the looting of grains carried out by Clive, and his gang of bandits and killers, drained grain from Bengal and resulted in 10 million deaths in the great famine, eliminating one-third of Bengal’s population.

It should be noted that Britain’s much-touted industrial revolution began in 1770, the very same year people were dying all over Bengal. The Boston Tea Party that triggered the American Revolution had taken place in 1773. The Boston Tea Party made the Empire realize that its days in America were numbered, and led Britain to concentrate even more on organizing the looting of India.

Why Famines Became So Prevalent During the British Raj Days

The prime reason why these devastating famines took place at a regular intervals, and were allowed to continue for years, was the British Empire’s policy of depopulating its colonies. If these famines had not occurred, India’s population would have reached a billion people long before the Twentieth Century arrived. That, the British Empire saw as a disaster.

To begin with, a larger Indian population would mean larger consumption by the locals, and deprive the British Raj to a greater amount of loot. The logical way to deal with the problem was to develop India’s agricultural infrastructure. But that would not only force Britain to spend more money to run its colonial and bestial empire; it would also develop a healthy population which could rise up to get rid of the abomination called the British Raj. These massive famines also succeeded in weakening the social structure and backbone of the Indians, making rebellions against the colonial forces less likely. In order to perpetuate famines, and thus depopulate the “heathen” and “dark” Indians, the British imperialists launched a systematic propaganda campaign. They propped up the fraudster Parson Thomas Malthus and promoted his non-scientific gobbledygook, “The Essay on Population.” There he claimed:

This natural inequality of the two powers of population and of production in the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that to me appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society. All other arguments are of slight and subordinate consideration in comparison of this. I see no way by which man can escape from the weight of this law which pervades all animated nature.

Although Malthus was ordained in the Anglican Church, British Empire made him a paid “economist” of the British East India Company, which, with the charter from Queen Elizabeth I under its belt, monopolized trade in Asia, colonizing vast tracts of the continent using its well-armed militia fighting under the English flag of St. George.

Malthus was picked up at the Haileybury and Imperial Service College, which was also the recruiting ground of some of the worst colonial criminals. This college was where the makers of British Empire’s murderous policies in India were trained. Some prominent alumni of Haileybury include Sir John Lawrence (Viceroy of India from 1864-68) and Sir Richard Temple (Lt. Governor of Bengal and later, Governor of Bombay presidency).

While Parson Malthus was putting forward his sinister “scientific theory” to justify depopulation as a natural and necessary process, The British Empire collected a whole bunch of other “economists” who wrote about the necessity of free trade. Free trade played a major role in pushing through the Empire’s genocidal depopulation of India, through the British Raj’s efforts. In fact, free trade is the other side of the Malthus’ population-control coin.

By the time the great famine of 1876 arrived, Britain had already built some railroads in India. The railroads, which were touted as institutional safeguards against famines, were instead used by merchants to ship grain inventories from outlying drought-stricken districts to central depots for hoarding. In addition, free traders’ opposition to price control ushered in a frenzy of grain speculation. As a result, capital was raised to import grains from drought-stricken areas, and further the calamity. The rise of price of grain was spectacularly rapid, and grain was taken from where it was most needed, to be stored in warehouses until the prices rose even higher.

The British Raj knew or should have known. Even if the British rulers did not openly encourage this process, they were fully aware of it, and they were perfectly comfortable in promoting free trade at the expense of millions of lives. This is how Mike Davis described what happened:

The rise [of prices] was so extraordinary, and the available supply, as compared with well-known requirements, so scanty that merchants and dealers, hopeful of enormous future gains, appeared determined to hold their stocks for some indefinite time and not to part with the article which was becoming of such unwonted value. It was apparent to the Government that facilities for moving grain by the rail were rapidly raising prices everywhere, and that the activity of apparent importation and railway transit, did not indicate any addition to the food stocks of the Presidency . …retail trade up-country was almost at a standstill. Either prices were asked which were beyond the means of the multitude to pay, or shops remained entirely closed.

At the time, Lord Lytton, a favorite poet of Queen Victoria who is known as a “butcher” to many Indians, was the Viceroy. He wholeheartedly opposed all efforts to stockpile grain to feed the famine-stricken population because that would interfere with market forces. In the autumn of 1876, while the monsoon crop was withering in the fields of southern India, Lytton was absorbed in organizing the immense Imperial Assemblage in Delhi to proclaim Victoria Empress of India.

How did Lytton justify this? He was an avowed admirer and follower of Adam Smith. Author Mike Davis writes that Smith

a century earlier in The Wealth of Nations had asserted (vis-à-vis the terrible Bengal droughtfamine of 1770) that famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconvenience of dearth, Lytton was implementing what Smith had taught him and other believers of free trade. Smith’s injunction against state attempts to regulate the price of grain during the 1770 famine had been taught for years in the East India Company’s famous college at Haileybury.[4]

Lytton issued strict orders that “there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food,” and “in his letters home to the India Office and to politicians of both parties, he denounced ‘humanitarian hysterics’.” By official diktat, India, like Ireland before it, had become a Utilitarian laboratory where millions of lives were gambled, pursuant to dogmatic faith in omnipotent markets overcoming the “inconvenience of dearth.”[5]

The Great Famines

Depicting the two dozen famines that killed more than 60 million Indians would require a lot of space, so I limit myself here to those that killed more than one million:

The Bengal Famine of 1770: This catastrophicfamine occurred between 1769 and 1773, and affected the lower Gangetic plain of India. The territory, then ruled by the British East India Company, included modern West Bengal, Bangladesh, and parts of Assam, Orissa, Bihar, and Jharkhand. The famine is supposed to have caused the deaths of an estimated 10 million people, approximately one-third of the population at the time.

The Chalisa Famine of 1783-84: The Chalisa famine affected many parts of North India, especially the Delhi territories, present-day Uttar Pradesh, Eastern Punjab, Rajputana (now named, Rajasthan), and Kashmir, then all ruled by different Indian rulers. The Chalisa was preceded by a famine in the previous year, 1782-83, in South India, including Madras City (now named Chennai) and surrounding areas (under British East India Company rule), and in the extended Kingdom of Mysore. Together, these two famines had taken at least 11 million lives, reports indicate.

The Doji Bara Famine (or Skull Famine) of 1791- 92: This famine caused widespread mortality in Hyderabad, Southern Maratha Kingdom, Deccan, Gujarat, and Marwar (also called Jodhpur region in Rajasthan). The British policy of diverting food to Europe, of pricing the remaining grain out of reach of native Indians, and adopting agriculture policy that destroyed food production, was responsible for this one. The British had surplus supplies of grain, which was not distributed to the very people that had grown it. As a result, about 11 million died between 1789-92 of starvation and accompanying epidemics that followed.

The Upper Doab Famine of 1860-61: The 1860-61 famine occurred in the British-controlled Ganga-Yamuna Doab (two waters, or two rivers) area engulfing large parts of Rohilkhand and Ayodhya, and the Delhi and Hissar divisions of the then-Punjab. Eastern part of the princely state of Rajputana. According to “official” British reports, about two million people were killed by this famine.

The Orissa Famine of 1866: Although it affected Orissa the most, this famine affected India’s east coast along the Bay of Bengal stretching down south to Madras, covering a vast area. One million died, according to the British “official” version.

The Rajputana famine of 1869: The Rajputana famine of 1869 affected an area of close to 300,000 square miles which belonged mostly to the princely states and the British territory of Ajmer. This famine, according to “official” British claim, killed 1.5 million.

The Great Famine of 1876-78: This famine killed untold numbers of Indians in the southern part and raged for about four years. It affected Madras, Mysore, Hyderabad and Bombay (now called, Mumbai). The famine also subsequently visited Central Province (now called, Madhya Pradesh) and parts of undivided Punjab. The death toll from this famine was in the range of 5.5 million people. Some other figures indicate the number of deaths could be as high as 11 million.

Indian famine of 1896-97 and 1899-1900: This one affected Madras, Bombay, Deccan, Bengal, United Provinces (now called, Uttar Pradesh), Central Provinces, Northern and eastern Rajputana, parts of Central India, and Hyderabad: six million reportedly died in British territory during these two famines. The number of deaths occurred in the princely states is not known.

The Bengal Famine of 1943-44: This Churchill-orchestrated famine in Bengal in 1943-1944 killed an estimated 3.5 to 5 million people.

Relief Camps, or Concentration camps

There were several policy-arrows which Adolf Hitler might have borrowed from the British quiver to kill millions, but one that he borrowed for certain in setting up his death camps, was how the British ran the camps to provide “relief” to the starving millions. Anyone who entered these relief camps, did not exit alive.

Take the actions of Viceroy Lytton’s deputy, Richard Temple, another Haileybury product imbued with the doctrine of depopulation as the necessary means to keep the Empire strong and vigorous. Temple was under orders from Lytton to make sure there was no “unnecessary” expenditure on relief works.

According to some analysts, Temple’s camps were not very different from Nazi concentration camps. People already half-dead from starvation had to walk hundreds of miles to reach these relief camps. Additionally, he instituted a food ration for starving people working in the camps, which was less than that was given to the inmates of Nazi concentration camps.

The British refused to provide adequate relief for famine victims on the grounds that this would encourage indolence. Sir Richard Temple, who was selected to organize famine relief efforts in 1877, set the food allotment for starving Indians at 16 ounces of rice per day—less than the diet for inmates at the Buchenwald concentration camp for the Jews in Hitler’s Germany. British disinclination to respond with urgency and vigor to food deficits resulted in a succession of about two dozen appalling famines during the British occupation of India. These swept away tens of millions of people. The frequency of famine showed a disconcerting increase in the nineteenth century.[6]

It was deliberate then, and it’s deliberate now.

1. Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World, London, Verso Books, 2001.

2. Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, New York: Basic Books.

3. Davis, op. cit.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid

6. Bhatia, B.M., Famines in India, A Study in Some Aspects of the Economic History of India, 1860-1945, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1963.

By Ramtanu Maitra

July 3, 2015 EIR

About the author:

Dr Ramtanu Maitra

A specialist on South Asian Affairs who operates out of Washington D.C. Ramtanu Maitra specialises on strategic and infrastructural developmental studies with the focus on South Asia.
He holds a Masters Degree in Structural Engineering and was working as a Senior Project Engineer with the Nuclear Power Services, Secaucus, NJ.
Ramtanu Maitra participated in developing a document, India: An agro-industrial superpower by 2020, in 1981.
He established and published a quarterly journal, Fusion Asia, on science, technology, energy and economics from New Delhi for more than 10 years (1984-1994).
He wrote and published the first feature report on India’s high-energy physics program based in PRL, Ahmedabad. Prepared and published a detailed report on Ganges River Valley Development that was presented at an international conference inaugurated by the late president of India, Shri K.R. Narayanan, then Minister for Planning.
He participated on behalf of Fusion Asia on a feasibility study that also involved the Mitsubishi Research Institute (Tokyo) and the Thai Citizen Forum. Presented papers at a number of international conferences on strategic infrastructures in Bogota, Colombia, Tokyo, Japan, Kolkata, Indore, Madurai, Indore, New Delhi, among other Indian cities.
In 1994, Shri Maitra established New Delhi bureau for Asia Times, a Bangkok-based news daily published simultaneously from Bangkok, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and New York.
Presently, he conducts research, analysis, writing on international economic and strategic developments for publications internationally, including: Foresight (Japan); Aakrosh, Agni, Indian Defense and Technology (India); Asia Times Online (Hong Kong); and Executive Intelligence Review (USA).

Ramtanu Maitra is a regular columnist with the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), a news weekly published from Washington DC. He writes columns for Asia Times of Hong Kong, Frontier Post of Peshawar and some other newspapers in Asia on South Asian political economy and Asian security. He has written on terrorism in a number of publications in the United States and India. 





Original source of the article:

Genocide, the British don’t want you to know about – They systematically starved to death over 60 millions of Eastern Indians!

Croatian Leader Lauds Ustasha Nazis As The «Fourth Reich Lite» Rears Its Ugly Head In Europe

Croatia’s president, the former deputy NATO secretary general for public diplomacy Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, decided to pay homage to Nazis of the Ustasha Nazi puppet regime of Croatia shot by Yugoslav partisans at the end of World War II. Grabar-Kitarovic’s tone deafness in choosing Victory in Europe week to honor dead Nazis shocked the Balkans and the rest of Europe.

The Ustasha, along with their Slovenian and Serb loyalists to the Nazi puppet regime, were killed by the partisans under the command of anti-fascist guerrilla leader Josip Broz Tito. Most of the Ustasha were killed in the Austrian town of Bleiburg, as well as in the Slovenian towns of Macelj and Tezno. The Ustasha were attempting to flee among hordes of other refugees from Tito’s forces who were mopping up the last remaining pockets of Nazi resistance in Yugoslavia. The Ustasha actually sought the protection of British forces that were advancing from Austria toward the Yugoslav border. It was known to the Ustasha that the Serbian Chetnik guerrilla leader, the non-Communist, Draza Mihailovic, who had battled the Ustasha had maintained a special relationship with the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) intelligence and military officials while also cooperating with the Axis powers of Germany and Italy. However, the British had struck a deal with Tito’s partisans at the expense of the Chetniks and although they did not directly aid the Ustasha, they had no problem letting the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Vatican help spirit out of Yugoslavia some of the top Ustasha officials in the infamous «Rat Line» operation coordinated with Croatian Catholic war criminal Monsignor Krunoslav Draganovic.

British intelligence had, for some time, played an underhanded role in the Balkans. British intelligence had ties to the «Crna Ruka» (Black Hand) operation of which Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was a member. Princip’s assassination of Ferdinand in 1914 helped trigger off World War I. At the same time, British intelligence was kick-starting another Black Hand group in Palestine, known as «al-Kaff al-Aswad» in Arabic, which began attacking Jewish settlers at the same time British Lord Balfour was promising Palestine to the Zionists as a future Jewish homeland. The British and their American allies, mostly through the auspices of NATO, continue to play dangerous intelligence games in the Balkans.

Many of the Ustasha leadership, including the Nazi puppet dictator Ante Pavelic, managed to escape the firing squads planned by Tito’s partisans and they fled to Argentina, courtesy of hastily-prepared Vatican passports authorized by Pope Pius XII. During the Cold War, Draganovic, Pavelic, and other Croatians served as exiled members of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Operation Gladio. From 1959 to 1962, Draganovic helped the CIA run Ustasha clandestine agents in Yugoslavia who passed on intelligence about the Tito government to the West.

Grabar-Kitarovic laid wreaths at Ustasha memorials in the three towns where the Ustasha forces met their fates. The memorial in Bleiburg serves as a rallying point for neo-Nazis annually who come to pay tribute to the Nazi Ustasha killed by Tito’s forces. Grabar-Kitarovic was accompanied at the ceremonies by Croatian Prime Minster Zoran Milanović, a member of the Social Democratic Party and a former member of Croatia’s delegation to NATO in Brussels, and who, as is typical for a Soros loyalist, is a strong promoter of gender equality and human artificial insemination.

Grabar-Kitarovic represents a phalanx of Nazi sympathizers and aspirant nations who serve in senior government positions throughout NATO countries in Eastern Europe, including the three Baltic States, Albania, Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. NATO headquarters has always been rife with pro-Nazi senior officers on its staff, particularly those from Denmark, the Baltic nations, and Belgium. Rasmussen was the prime minister of Denmark before becoming NATO Secretary-General.

Grabar-Kitarovic’s actions, during the period the world was commemorating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazis has led to condemnations from her own country, as well as others, including Russia and Serbia, that helped defeat Hitler and his allies. In April 2015, Grabar-Kitarovic failed to attend a commemoration at the Nazi concentration camp of Jasenovac where an estimated 83,000 people died at the hands of the Ustasha. The victims, although primarily Serbs, also included Roma (gypsies), Jews, and anti-Nazi Croatians in that order, mainly because the names of the many of the Roma killed were never registered.

The CIA’s interest in using Yugoslav minority groups led by Nazi and neo-Nazi elements is illustrated in a SECRET limited copy document, dated October 1985, titled «Yugoslavia: Internal Security Capabilities». The document points out that Yugoslavia’s decentralized internal security forces after Tito’s death in 1980 provided some unique opportunities to make common cause with those seeking to foment «ethnic or interregional conflict» in the country. The CIA took comfort in the fact that in 1985, Yugoslavia’s state security network was «an array of regional and provincial organizations only loosely controlled by the federal government». In other words, Yugoslavia was a sitting duck for penetration by CIA-supported Nazi emigré groups, particularly the Croatians and Albanians.

Ustasha leader Draganovic arranged for the Nazi «Butcher of Lyon,» Klaus Barbie, to escape to Argentina at the end of World War II. When Barbie asked Draganovic why he was helping him to escape, the Catholic prelate tipped his hand on future Western intelligence operations in the Balkans and Europe, replying, «We have to maintain a sort of moral reserve on which we can draw in the future».

That «moral reserve» would later be used by the CIA inside Yugoslavia to incite ethnic tensions to bring down the Communist-led government. In fact, the CIA report appears to relish in the fact that Albanians in Kosovo were the first to rebel against the federal government in 1981, the year after Tito’s death. The CIA document also states that for any significant regional discontent to materialize, the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA), «the national institution least affected by regional divisions,» would have to be dealt with by the external forces hoping to capitalize on Yugoslavia’s ethnic divisions. The 1981 Kosovo riots by Albanian nationalists apparently had the tacit support of the regional Kosovo communist leader and his two top security officials. They were removed from office by the federal government. A redacted paragraph providing more information on the Kosovo officials may include details of previous contact with them or their associates by the CIA station in Belgrade. The CIA report does state that Yugoslav Interior Minister Dobroslav Culafic stated that in 1984 and 1985, «16 underground organizations and groups with 362 members had been uncovered» in Kosovo. The former Interior Minister, Stane Dolanc, is quoted in the CIA report as stating that the Kosovo Communist leadership failed to apprise Belgrade on the extent of the Albanian nationalist problems in Kosovo. The CIA report also describes nascent nationalist uprisings in Croatia, Vojvodina, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The CIA report mentions the Croatian “rebellion” of 1971, which saw a number of Croatian nationalists propose rights for the Croatian language and the idea of incorporating Herzegovina into the Yugoslav republic of Croatia.

The Croatian nationalist rebellion of 1971, now dubbed by the Sorosites and one of their their virtual house organs, Wikipedia, as the “Croatian Spring,” was put down by force and among those jailed was the future first president of independent Croatia, communist-turned-nationalist Franjo Tudjman. The current president, Grabar-Kitarovic, is a member of Tudjman’s party, the Croatian Democratic Union, seen by many as the successors to the Nazi Ustasha fascists. From Croatia to Ukraine and Romania to Latvia, there is a resurgence of Nazism in Europe, brought on by decades of machinations by the CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and Soros’s Open Society Institute. This resurgence could be referred to as the «Fourth Reich Lite».


By Wayne Madsen

Original source of the article:


The Middle East On The Waves Of Chaos

For some time the criminal activities of the terrorist organization “Islamic State” (ISIS) seemed to have faded into the shadows. It seemed that this organization in the near future will be broken tie with due to the “heroic” American bombing. However, the ISIS like a fabulous hydra, who immediately has a new head grown in place of a severed one, revived and made further impressive gains.

The capture of ancient Palmyra in Syria and the important city Ramadi, the main city of the Sunni province Anbar, located by the way just 100 kilometres far from Baghdad, made the world’s media and politicians speak again about the power and strength of the terrorists, which have already announced the creation of a new caliphate. Analysts give their forecasts for the near future of this region, for the plans of not only the Syrian and Iraqi leadership, but above all of Washington, whose activities in the fight against terrorism have faded and are gradually eroding to nothing.

Many people believe that this is not surprising, since the ISIS came out of the womb of Al Qaeda terrorist group, created and fostered back in the day by the United States with the help of the Saudis. And now the terrorists of the “Islamic State” are bringing chaos, tyranny, and murder in the ancient land of Mesopotamia, in accordance with the plans of the administration of Barack Obama to establish a stranglehold on the entire Middle East region and cement its dominant influence here.

And in this case for Washington, like it or not, the “Islamic State” is the most suitable to advance its plans, although it seems to be carrying out only its own plans. Who is the ISIS, what are its plans and its tacit alliance with the United States? – The ideology of the ISIS is known to be formed by Salafists, who have set themselves a number of tasks. The closest is the consolidation of already occupied territories and the seizure of the remaining lands of Syria and Iraq. In the medium term its objective is to establish its power in full in Syria and Iraq and in neighbouring countries inhabited by Sunni Muslims. It is possible that in the near future the ISIS is planning to expand into Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The long term objective for the “Islamic State” is a domination in the entire region of the Arab East. As we can see, in the face of the ISIS Washington has a good, hefty cudgel, with which it threatens not only its enemies, but its friends.

Over the whole territory controlled by the ISIS, sharia courts enforce segregation by gender, and women are obliged to wear the veil. Religious police patrols the streets, enforcing the observance of sharia law by Muslims. Alcohol, tobacco, and drugs are strictly prohibited. All this is well-suited to countries of the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, which is the closest US ally in the region. This was once again confirmed at the recently concluded Arab-American summit at Camp David. Then none other than the US President solemnly pledged to guarantee the security of the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, and as a first gesture – to place on their territory a US missile defence system.

According to the CIA Director John O. Brennan, the ISIS is well armed and well funded. The core of the “Islamic State” army is manned by disciplined, well-trained and battle-hardened fighters. Battle groups are covertly penetrating everywhere. The ISIS is a real threat not only to Syria and Iraq, but also to remote regions of the Middle East. The ISIS paramilitary groups, according to military experts, have over 200 thousand bayonets. This includes combat brigades, Ansar support groups, Hisbah security forces, police forces, and militias (militiamen, local self-defence units: Mukhabarat, Assas, Amniyat, Ain al-Khas, etc.), recruits undergoing military training in boot camps, and up to 22 thousand foreign fighters of almost 100 nationalities.

Now, as estimated by the world’s media, about 40% of the territory of Syria with a population of over 2.2 million people is under the reign of the ISIS. In Iraq, the ISIS controls up to 25% of the country territory, almost all the areas where most Sunnis live, more than 4.6 million people. Let us recall that on May 17 Islamists managed to capture Ramadi city, and thus, Baghdad is again in danger like in the summer of 2014. Now Ramadi continues to strengthen with militants, Islamists are mining roads and buildings. According to the UN, Anbar province has some 40 thousand people left, refugees are mainly leaving for Baghdad. But there is unrest in the capital itself, where “Islamic State” militants regularly commit acts of terrorism. As a result of one of them alone, when six bombs went off in different parts of the city at the same time, at least 40 people were killed. In all cases, parked cars were blown up.

It is noteworthy that the terrorists tried to take Ramadi before, too, but this time they did it because of the refusal of the Iraqi army (of course, at the suggestion of the United States) to use Shiite militia in the Sunni province, allegedly on the grounds that it could strengthen sectarian division. But in this case the mystery was easily solved: Washington did not want and does not want to use the Shiite groups, behind which Tehran quite reasonably stands. In other words, once again we have a clear incidence of the US playing a game for their own benefits, but at the expense of Arabs living there, who have long been tired of the wars initiated by the United States far back in 2003.

In general, the situation has been deteriorated again, and this is the result of intrigues that Washington actively schemes, and their sense is simple in fact – to prevent Iran’s active participation in the defeat of the ISIS. In this regard, the visit of the Iranian Defence Minister, Brigadier General Hossein Dehkan to Baghdad for urgent consultations with the Iraqi Defence Minister Khaled al-Obeidi as soon as the city of Ramadi fell is remarkable.

Attention is drawn to the following fact: The US Congress recently passed a law, according to which the United States will only supply weapons to the Kurds and an entity called “Sunnistan” – a territory of Iraq compactly populated by Sunnis, without approving deliveries with Baghdad. The amount of aid is about 800 million USD. Interestingly, most of the territory of “Sunnistan” is controlled by the ISIS, making it unclear, to whom the Americans intend to supply weapons. In any case, there have been already precedents, when American planes dropped weapons to the ISIS’s militants. A quite particular question that has to be answered is: whether this was an accident or a deliberate practice, the meaning of which is to use the terrorists to defeat the central government in Baghdad, which, in the opinion of Washington, is under the influence of Tehran.

This truth has been realized even in Baghdad, where the Interior Minister Mohammed Salem al-Gabbani said that the US provides insufficient support to defeat the “Islamic State”. He pointed to the poor training of the newly formed Iraqi army by the “experienced” American instructors and the lack of supplies of modern weapons.

However, instead of direct help, Washington reiterates, like a mantra, its promises. For example, the US Vice President Joseph Biden “assured” Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi of the intention to accelerate the supplies of the US arms to fight the “Islamic State”. Suppliers include the AT-4 portable anti-tank grenade launchers to counteract improvised explosive devices fitted on vehicles, additional uniforms, and other provisions of the Iraqi army. However, as the Baghdad press notes, these supplies should have been delivered yesterday, and today Iraqi soldiers without modern weapons simply imitate a fight against the terrorists, including around Ramadi.

The analysis of the latest developments taking place in Iraq and Syria clearly shows the chaos in which Washington, through its allies, has plunged the region, starting an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Now this state, in the truest sense of the word, does not exit. It is just a vast territory, where the West, the Gulf countries, and Iran are sorting out their relationships.


About the author:

Viktor Mikhin, member correspondent of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Original source of the article: First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/30/the-middle-east-on-the-waves-of-chaos/